when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings

In recent times, the world population today has crossed the 7 billion mark. With the growing population and the accompanying needs, there’s a concomitant increase in the planning and construction industry. With the limited area to utilize, it has been often argued that when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings. I do not agree with this argument. In this day and age, with the advances in science and technology we have ample resources and infrastructure to plan a modern development without encroaching into our historical landmarks.  Historical buildings may not be torn down in favor of newer structures only in exceptional circumstances.

Should we  favor a health club or a spa or a  football stadium at the site  which includes  Martin Luther King’s childhood home citing that the project  would yield revenue and would serve the needs of  the communities nearby? Or should we tear down the Vietnam war memorial and build a transport center there considering the horrendous traffic in Washington D.C?  I don’t think so. The historical importance of a site cannot always be valued in terms of money. Certain things in life are priceless and a deep appreciation of human history, a glimpse in tour precious past and culture, all could count amongst them.   If it’s an absolute necessity that a new building could be constructed, we may need to rely on our brightest engineers and architects to come up with a plan that does not include dereliction of  the historical artifacts. We do have the talent pool and the resources to help us plan such an endeavor. We might need to shift the modern building to different area or build a taller building utilizing the limited space or remodel an existing building to better fit our needs.

Things could be different when the old buildings do not have much of a historical relevance, though I understand that historical relevance is rather a relative term. If one has a choice between maintaining a old dilapidated motel or  building a new one at the same site, the latter might be a better idea. If in a community with no hospitals, one could  build one in an old fairground, the argument to preserve the older buildings in the fairground just to preserve its history is less convincing.  

In summary I believe that historical buildings, especially our landmarks  should be preserved if at all possible, as they open a window into our past life and culture, and are often priceless gifts for our posterity. If the buildings are difficult to maintain or renovate, and their historical significance is debatable, they could be replaced if that helps the public and cuts down costs considerably.